1999 (4) TMI 187 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of the term "newsprint" under the Central Excise Tariff.
- Eligibility for exemption from duty under notification 60/88.
- Compliance with specifications for newsprint manufacturing.
- Evidence required to establish exemption eligibility.
- Seizure of documents related to supply of goods.

Interpretation of the term "newsprint" under the Central Excise Tariff:
The Tribunal analyzed the term "newsprint" within Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff. It noted that the classification of paper as newsprint is based on its intended use for printing newspapers, not on specific parameters like pulp composition or surface roughness. The Tribunal emphasized that as long as the paper is intended for printing newspapers, it meets the criteria for classification as newsprint.

Eligibility for exemption from duty under notification 60/88:
The Commissioner had denied the appellant the benefit of duty exemption under notification 60/88, stating that the paper cleared as newsprint did not conform to the required specifications. However, the Tribunal directed a reconsideration of this decision, highlighting that if evidence could be provided showing that the paper was supplied to newspaper publishers for printing newspapers, the goods should be considered as newsprint, meeting the notification requirements.

Compliance with specifications for newsprint manufacturing:
The Commissioner found that the newsprint manufactured by the appellant did not meet the specifications outlined by the Bureau of Indian Standard Institute 1986. This non-conformity led to the denial of duty exemption and the imposition of penalties. However, the Tribunal focused on the intended use of the paper for printing newspapers rather than strict adherence to specific manufacturing specifications.

Evidence required to establish exemption eligibility:
The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing evidence that the paper in question was indeed supplied to newspaper publishers registered with the Registrar of Newspapers. The appellant was given a timeframe to produce the necessary documentation to demonstrate compliance with the notification requirements for duty exemption eligibility.

Seizure of documents related to supply of goods:
The Chief Executive of the appellant mentioned that documents crucial for proving the supply of goods to registered newspaper publishers were seized during a prior investigation and were still in the custody of the department. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to provide copies of the seized documents to the appellant for inspection and copying. The appellant was then required to furnish the evidence within a specified timeframe for further adjudication by the Commissioner.